MADHU CHERIAN Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th petitioner is the proprietor of an establishment by name 'Kuruvila and Company' which deals with roofing, cladding and other hardware items. The petitioners 1 to 3 are his employees. They applied for registration as Headload Workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 ('the Rules', for short). By Exhibit P4 order, their application was rejected. Though an appeal was preferred before the 1st respondent, the same ended in dismissal. According to the petitioners, reason for rejection of the application is that registration, if granted to petitioners 1 to 3, would adversely affect the work of other registered headload workers. The second reason assigned is that the registers maintained by the 4th petitioner were discrepant. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners impugn the order by which registration was refused.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein, it is stated that the petitioners 1 to 3 had filed applications for registration before the authority claiming that they are permanent headload workers of the 4th petitioner. However, Exhibits P2 (a) to P2(c) applications filed by the petitioners 1 to 3 before the registering authority would show that they are carrying out other works and takes up headload work only occasionally and that being the case, they cannot be regarded as headload workers entitled to registration.

(3.) Sri. V. Sethunath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. According to the learned counsel, the reasons given for rejection of their application cannot be sustained. Relying on a decision of this Court in Rajeev V District Labour, 2010 4 KerLT 783 it was argued that it is not necessary that the persons seeking registration should be headload workers already working under an employer who seeks to employ them as his permanent attached headload workers. The learned counsel also relied on the decision in Mohammed Shafeek V District Labour Officer, 2015 1 KerLT 314 and it was argued that the respondents grievously erred in rejecting the application on the ground that earnings of the other headload workers in the scheme covered area would be affected. According to the learned counsel, as the establishment of the 4th petitioner is situated is a scheme covered area, denying registration to the petitioners 1 to 3 would amount to violation of their fundamental right to carry on a profession of their choice. Much reliance is placed on the principles laid down in the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police,1998 2 KerLT 732 (F.B) to hammer home his contention.